Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I also like your comment about talking about the benefits of nuclear weapons to Japanese families with roots in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I read where one son of such a family thanked Col. Paul Tibbets for dropping the atomic bomb, as it prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians by starvation because food was being horded by the Japanese military.
In passing, my father's division was scheduled to be in the 2nd invasion, the one outside Tokyo, if we had invaded Japan (and a reserve for the first landing if things went really bad there). The 96th had landed October 20, 1944 on Leyte, fought through the campaign there, landed on Okinawa April 1, 1945, fought there through June.
In that time Dad's company (officially 192 officers & men, although they were about 220 strong when they landed on Okinawa) took several hundred casualties, about 65 dead in combat. Dad was one of three original members who never got a scratch. As the war ended, Dad was in a convoy that passed through the area where the Indianapolis was sunk a few days later, and had a submarine alert. The unit was on an island, beginning to get ready for the next operation, when they got the news of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Japanese surrender.
Through the years, Dad's opinion of anti-nuclear protest, the how-could-you-drop-the-A-bomb-on-the-poor-Japanese type, has always been clear, usually expressed as either sarcasm or humor. To him, it was very simple. He figured his luck was about up. If there was a choice about who was going to die, he wanted it to be the Japanese, not him and his people. Anything at all that ended the war in American victory had to have a good side for him. His description of the reactions of the surviving Leyte-Okinawa veterans to the news leaves no doubt of where they stood, either.
I am sure the Union veterans of Sherman's force (almost all of whom seem to have been long-term soldiers, about half of whom had voluntarily re-enlisted in early 1864) was much the same. They wanted the war over. If someone had to suffer, they would much rather it was the enemy than them and theirs. Southerners would have felt much the same about their enemy. None of that feeling has much to do with right-and-wrong, merely to do with being in a war. As such things go, it is merely normal and to be expected.
As a result, Sherman's troops were quite willing to smash and destroy what they did in Georgia during the March to the Sea (which is actually much less concentrated destruction than the earlier "Burning" of Sheridan in the Shenandoah). It is also quite clear that they had a different attitude about South Carolina than any other state, holding those people much more responsible for the war than anyone else. The attitude of Sherman's troops on that is well-documented, and the destruction in South Carolina is far greater than in either Georgia or North Carolina.
But in all that, the incidence of things like murder, rape, and other crimes in Sherman's March is remarkably low by world standards of the time, and probably for most wars in most times. No civilian population has ever liked having an enemy army forage upon them; heck, most of the time having your own army forage upon you is pretty bad and sometimes worse. Even with Robert E. Lee's expressed orders to his troops, you can find burning and destruction in Chambersburg and other places during the 1863 campaign -- much of it occurring before Gettysburg happened -- and the huge trains of supplies Lee sent South, along with the many black people rounded up and sent South as escaped slaves, was designed to hurt the North and help the South, just as Sherman's campaign was.
I spent an hour on reply to Unionblue and posted. Once doing so the screen did not return to the post as it usually does and now I cannot find it. Post #210 is missing from the sequence on my screen. Does anyone have it (#210) available to them and can you verify whether its mine or not? It's not earthshaking or anything but I'd like to know I didn't waste the time.
You'll have to explain why. This is a generally expected attitude for men in that situation in a war. No matter what time, which side, or anything else.
You'll have to explain why. This is a generally expected attitude for men in that situation in a war. no matter what time, which side, or anything else.
Regards,
Tim
Well maybe it just a case of me saying to-may-toe and you saying to-mah-toe, but "normal" and "to-be-expected" are not generally terms used, in my circles, anyway, when discussing Sherman's March to the Sea.
But I see where you're coming from, too. So allow me to offer the following to help me express myself:
Football game, huge rivalry, hotly and emotionally contested, pile up in the middle of the field after a play. One player gouges/spits/pokes/etc an opponent while tangled in the pile.
The gouger/spitter/poker/etc'er says, "Hey, that's just the game!!!. What's the problem?".
The gougee/spitee/pokee/etc'ee says, "It's not part of the game. It's outside of game, outside of the rules. It's unnecessary."
Well maybe it just a case of me saying to-may-toe and you saying to-mah-toe, but "normal" and "to-be-expected" are not generally terms used, in my circles, anyway, when discussing Sherman's March to the Sea.
With all due respect, and with absolutely no offense meant by this, that is merely a comment on the emotional slant of your circles. It is not an objective comment on the reality of men's attitudes after years of combat -- which is what we are looking at in the soldiers of the Union and Confederacy in 1864.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeith21
But I see where you're coming from, too. So allow me to offer the following to help me express myself:
Football game, huge rivalry, hotly and emotionally contested, pile up in the middle of the field after a play. One player gouges/spits/pokes/etc an opponent while tangled in the pile.
The gouger/spitter/poker/etc'er says, "Hey, that's just the game!!!. What's the problem?".
The gougee/spitee/pokee/etc'ee says, "It's not part of the game. It's outside of game, outside of the rules. It's unnecessary."
Who's correct?
I'd have to say, again without offense, that your example would be nowhere near the emotional pitch of men involved in fighting the Civil War for so long. If you want to make this even close, you'd have to throw in a few players already dead or maimed for life, careers ended, from a series of previous games -- and about a dozen more hauled off to the hospital or morgue in the first half of the current game before the pile-up. You would also have to make the current game a struggle to the finish, which would put an end to all of this horror with victory for one side or the other -- and which must continue without end until one side or the other wins. Even then you would not be close in my opinion. War is very different than anything most people encounter in their lives.
The men Sherman left Atlanta with were carefully selected. The regiments had seen combat at almost every major battle you can name in 1861-63, plus the Atlanta Campaign itself. About half had re-enlisted before the Atlanta Campaign; almost 90% had served since 1862. Officers were all veterans of two or more years of war. (Source a study of 25 regiments in Sherman's army during the March to the Sea.)
These men had seen war in Virginia and Tennessee, in Georgia and Mississippi and Kentucky. Between them, they had seen Vicksburg, Stones River, Corinth, Iuka, Perryville, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, Bull Run, Seven Pines, the Seven Days, 2nd Bull Run, Antietam, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. Before they left Atlanta, they had heard of the burning of Chambersburg (and possibly of Sheridan's "Burning" in the Shenandoah a little later.)
Men like that have their choices fined down. They have no "well, maybe" to their opinions on the matter at hand. The war has to end. Either they will give it up and go home (if they can) or they will go forward to do what they must to end it.
Men like that had little resistance to the idea of punishing the South as they did. Their performance, if viewed against similar wars, is actually very mild, amazingly so by historical standards. But very few Southerners can be expected to want to hear that, no matter how true it actually is.
Russian Cossacks coming through would have been far worse or an army of Prussians(God-help-you!). Nothing that happened in Georgia holds a candle to what the French did in Spain (1808-14) or in the Tyrol (1805, 1809) or in Italy (1795-1800) or Egypt/the Middle East under Napoleon (or the people who opposed them did as well). It was only 15 years before Sherman's March that an Austrian general, passing a convent that he thought had sheltered some rebels, had the nuns hauled out, stripped, and whipped. Many Mexicans would gladly have swapped the behavior of Sherman's men for what was done to them by American invaders in 1846-47. Take a look at what the Germans did in Belgium and northern France in August of 1914 if you think Sherman was anything but mild.
Americans think of Sherman's March as a great horror. It was certainly harsh, and anyone living through it would have felt angry and helpless in varying degrees -- which was intended. But even in American history it is not all that terrible -- certainly no worse than what Rodgers did to the Abenaki, or George Washington did to the Iroquois, or some of the things that happened to the Mormons early on, or the Trail of Tears eviction of the Cherokees and other tribes, or sending the Apaches to a reservation in Florida, or Sand Creek/the Wa****a, or some of the tortures US troops in the Philippines invented (the one that managed to make veteran Spanish inquisitors blanch was particularly disgusting). IMHO, it is not as harsh as those events.
Sherman may have said "War is Hell!", but he gave Georgia and the Carolinas only a small taste of it, just enough to make sure they knew they wanted to avoid the full meal. He, like most soldiers, knew just how bad it could get. The March made the logic of surrender crystal clear -- but even then men like Jefferson Davis and others rejected it.
I have no idea what that could possibly have to do with this topic, but I'd say less so in the border states, but more solidly in the deep South. Lincoln's call for troops pushed the border states into more or less reluctant secession.
My question about Southern civilian support of secession and the war has everything to do with this topic. Sherman realized that the Southern war effort was not limited to the Confederate armies. The Southern population was a very significant part of the maintenance of the war. The Confederacy was, I think you will agree, a democratic republic in which the political leaders were placed their by the votes and support of the population. The Confederate armies were largely made up of men who volunteered, and relied upon the moral support as well as logistical support from the Southern population. Without a majority of Southern civilians behind the war, the Confederacy could not survive...at least not very long.
Sherman's campaign specifically targeted the South's will to fight, as well as its ability to fight. His march through Georgia caused great panic and great frustration within the South. Reading through Georgia newspapers in late 1864 one notices two things. First, many Georgians were trying to maintain an air of defiance. Second, and more importantly, the anger and frustration among Georgians with Confederate leadership, the war effort and the overall outlook of the war increased rapidly. Georgia editors criticized Richmond officials, cursed certain officers (like Hood), and began showing a great amount of despair as Sherman marched unopposed through the South.
This frustration, this internal strife, that began spreading through the Confederate homefront helped shatter the Confederacy's ability to wage war.
There is another element to my question. The destruction of the civilian's will to fight not only helped bring about the end of the war -- it also helped prevent a future rebellion. As long as the Southern people supported secession, the struggle for the Union would not be over, even if the Confederate armies were losing battles. Crushing the overall Southern desire to resist federal authority meant that when the Confederate armies surrendered, the Southern people would also want no more war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Admitted by whom? I didn't say Sherman's tactics were used to save lives or that it was worse than if he had killed more people for Union victory.
Do you believe that the burning of some civilian property with limited loss of life rather than bloody, often inconclusive battles, was not a form of saving lives? Do you believe that this destruction of property rather than lives was worse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I believe he made Southern civilians a bit more than "uncomfortable". There is no way to prove how many lives were spared because of Sherman's despicable actions, or even if any were. I believe if you could ask the Southern soldier if he preferred meeting Sherman on the battlefield or if he preferred Sherman to attack his home, wife and children, the answer should be obvious.
Of course. But that's not the point. Sherman proved to many Southern soldiers and civilians that he couldn't be stopped. He took the position that the war was not simply about armies in the field, but included society as a whole. As mentioned above, the population is part of war in a democratic society, for it is an integral part in the maintenance of that war.
As Sherman said, "War is all hell." Complaining that his tactics were "despicable" is pointless. He was not trying to make friends. Confederate soldiers, and the Southern population, were attempting to use military force of arms to impose their will upon the Union. The Confederacy chose to defend its self-proclaimed secession with bullets. Sherman showed them just how destructive war could be -- to both soldiers and civilians.
Whether or not you like it is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I'm skeptical of the sincerity of a man that did all that Sherman did to the people of the South. If he was trying to prove he "wasn't such a bad guy", I'm having trouble buying the story.
There are a few good biographies on Sherman. He was a complex man. He had lived in the South for a few years and was working in Louisiana at the outbreak of the war. His actions toward the South were specifically within the context of the war. And, as I pointed out before, his actions at the end of the war prove his sincerity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
A man not bent on complete vindictiveness would not have done the unnecessary things he did to the devastation of Southern civilians, thier homes and properties.
Please explain to me how and why the Southern population and property was off-limits in the war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Southern victory would have been nothing short of miraculous. By 1864 the Confederate army was in rags, barefoot, hungry and sadly lacking in numbers comparable to the Union army. They had no medicine or other necessary supplies. I believe it is you using hindsight to vindicate Sherman.
If a Southern victory was all but impossible and Southerners knew it, then the men -- like Lee, Davis, etc. -- who pushed on for another few months are the most irresponsible and destructive figures in American history for wasting so many more lives in a lost cause. Perhaps you would now like to chastise those Confederate soldiers, leaders and civilians, who kept up the war effort despite an impossible victory. Think how many lives would have been saved and property not destroyed if the Confederate armies would have given up in September 1864!
The fact of the matter is that Sherman's campaign took place while (and because) the Confederacy had not surrendered! Any modern argument that his campaign was unnecessary because the South could not have won is completely based on hindsight and ignores the fact that the South was still fighting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I never claimed Sherman destroyed a majority of Southern property only that he targeted civilians and left women and children homeless and often destroyed their food even if he couldn't haul it off and to add insult to injury he stole their family possessions that had nothing to do with winning a war. You bet it was psychological. I can agree with you there.
Your statement here mentions a majority and calls Sherman responsible for poverty "to the Southern states" (a fairly comprehensive reference): "The majority of the Southern people didn't depend on free labor, but they did depend on their livestock, barns, a home to live in and small valuables that Sherman's men destroyed or stole like the thieves they were. What Sherman did do was guarantee poverty to the Southern states for decades to come."
Again, I must ask why the trauma of losing family possessions was not part of winning the war? The destruction Sherman's men wrought turned many Southerners against the war. They lost their property, they felt hopeless, they had other things to worry about rather than continuing the war---they realized that further resistance was not worth the cost. They gave up. And that is what Sherman wanted. And he did it by burning some property, not by killing as many men (husbands, sons, brothers, fathers, etc.) in the Confederate ranks as he possibly could.
One final question...you mention you had relatives in Texas. Did you have family specifically affected by Sherman's march?
I'd have to say, again without offense, that your example would be nowhere near the emotional pitch of men involved in fighting the Civil War for so long...
Tim - Perhaps I want to oversimplify it. Perhaps you want to overcomplicate it. But it was really just a simple (but, granted, a loaded) question which I feel is applicable to the discussion and which I noticed you didn't answer.
Oh, and by the way, I fully respect, understand and acknowledge what you're saying. Can I get just a little in return?
Tim - Perhaps I want to oversimplify it. Perhaps you want to overcomplicate it. But it was really just a simple (but, granted, a loaded) question which I feel is applicable to the discussion and which I noticed you didn't answer.
You mean your "Who's correct?" I'd have to say I had already expressed my position on that a few posts back when I said: "None of that feeling has much to do with right-and-wrong, merely to do with being in a war."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeith21
Oh, and by the way, I fully respect, understand and acknowledge what you're saying. Can I get just a little in return?
??? Nothing I have said has anything to do with respect for what you are saying either way, and I have already acknowledged that I understand people of Southern descent have difficulty seeing things the way I describe it.
[quote=trice] The attitude of Sherman's troops on that is well-documented, and the destruction in South Carolina is far greater than in either Georgia or North Carolina.
I submit the reason Sherman "spared" North Carolina was the presence of Joseph Johnston and the remnant of the Army of Tennessee.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
